5 ms·

I'd say you have a fair point about the competition, but not about their being a lack of critical examination. A critical examination of the market would yield

I'd say you have a fair point about the competition, but not about their being a lack of critical examination. A critical examination of the market would yield the fact that surveyed black viewers want more content targeted at them, don't feel fully represented even in the existing black content that's out there, and that despite an admittedly (and perhaps temporary) spike in black content, an estimated $10b in revenue is being left on the table due to the mismatch between the supply of black content and the demand for it by black viewers. So yes, BET, and others, are going after this market. We looked at the landscape and decided there was something different we could do that wasn't just unique, but likely execute in a manner that the incumbents could not realistically pull off. BET--to use your own example--is owned by Viacom, whose two biggest strategic revenue plays are growing Paramount+ and licensing their content/channels to other distributors. Thus, BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money--usually one of the two I just mentioned. There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in, and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in. Yet I understand your criticism...this idea is not new, has lots of competition, and is late to a game that has already started. But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success.

gamblor956 5y ago
Maybe it's just because I have more exposure to the Hollywood side of this than you do, but you're very dismissive of BET and your other Hollywood competitors in a way that suggests you didn't do your research and that you're thinking that your tech backgrounds will magically let you jump into this market without actually knowing how it works. BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money Yes, BET is owned by Viacom, but unlike CBS, BET runs, and has run, largely as an independent unit, has its own financials, has control over its own studios and IP, and has its own streaming service, BET+. I really hope you haven't staked your entire business plan on a fundamental misunderstanding of how BET operates. There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in This is simply wrong. Every year, BET spends several multiples of what you've raised to date on developing new talent. Not only that but recent indie darlings I May Destroy You and Dear White People were both the product of conventional studios... But if by product you mean the delivery mechanism aka website, then your website simply isn't anything special, and it's definitely an inferior product compared to any your competitors right now. (It's irrelevant what you might have on your roadmap; customers will judge you based on what you have right now.) and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in. ??? Are you actually dismissing your competitors being available on Amazon and Roku? The point of being on Amazon and Roku is to expand the potential audience, not to "disintermediate" themselves. If your goal is to be web-only, you're relegating yourself to never-was status. Note that HBO Max's interfaces online, on my LG TV, and on my Roku are virtually identical (the same is true of Disney+, and Netflix's respective interfaces). But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success. As far as I can tell, your "differentiated approach" is to try and cheap your way into the market with a library of low-budget indie productions. This is a viable strategy to make money...if your plan is to resell those rights on to bigger studios/streamers, or use the rights to redevelop the IP. (See e.g., Saban of Power Rangers fame and his sizable library of old Japanese shows, or Blumhouse and horror). I had a number of other clients who also made good money reselling IP they bought on the cheap, but the key to this business strategy is knowing who wants to buy and how much they're willing to pay. But let's be serious: do you honestly believe that there is a $10 billion market for low-budget indie tv crap targeting black viewers? Because that's bigger than the non-targeted market for indie television in the U.S. (and note that Disney pulled in just over $11 billion in 2019 with mass market fare), so I'd have to seriously question both the inputs and the financial model that could have led to such a ridiculous number.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  Not scientific but observationally their target market does seem relatively high use on social media - so probably an opportunity if they picked up traction - low budget could also be authentic and black ownership for example is differentiating. That said the attacks on the existing options read a bit weak - will be fun to see what they come up with!
- Uzo0312 5y ago
  Obviously, you seem to think very highly of what you know, and very little of what I know. First and foremost, the idea that I just have a tech background is probably where you've really misread me. I'm a media person through and through who developed with the times and tech industry's takeover by technical developments. Second, I 100% understand how BET is owned. I don't think anyone on Wall St. cares when a public company says we operate this subsidiary like an independent unit--it's pretty much never been true in the history of public companies, but it certainly isn't true in the case of BET. BET's biggest show of the year (the BET Awards) is aired on multiple Viacom channels. BET+'s subscriber numbers are folded into Viacom's overall numbers and separately disclosed. BET's cable carriage fees are negotiated in conjunction with Viacom's other cable channels. And at least (I haven't actually done a full count) 3 of BET's original shows are available separately on other Viacom SVOD services--something the "leader" of BET+ wouldn't do if they were 100% focused on growing their own subscriber base. Also, I'm pretty sure the head of BET (Scott Mills) reports to David Nevins and not the CEO of Viacom, which is the only way you could even begin to think it's an independent unit. So for you to say BET is run as an independent unit--well, I'd hate to see what it would look like if it wasn't run independently. Third, when it comes to product, yes, BET spends more than us. We're a start-up. Our product is not what theirs is...yet. All I'm saying is that they aren't implementing the types of features we plan to add, and aren't investing in product development at a commiserate level with that of a tech company. And that's okay--I don't think they want to be a tech company--they want to be a media company (which I'll touch on later). In terms of our website being "inferior", you are right. We're not there yet. But to say it doesn't matter what's on our roadmap--well, I take it you don't really invest in seed companies. Because if all you can do is see what we're doing today and write us off, then you wouldn't invest in any company at the seed stage. You wouldn't even invest in Netflix before SVOD with that criteria. But I'll give it to you: we're not as good as the incumbents today. Fourth, yes, I look at our competitors' decision to use Amazon Channels and Roku Channel as an opportunity for us. I think you don't quite understand the nuance there though. I'm not criticizing them for making their apps downloadable to Amazon or Roku--our apps are there as well. I'm saying that they disintermediate themselves by being apart of those platforms "Channels" offerings, which means Amazon and Roku actually own the customer relationship and can take a huge percentage of the revenue from each customer. By doing that, our competitors are simply replicating the old cable business model in digital form. But what Netflix should have taught us is that digital finally gives TV companies the chance to know and "own" their customers--and there's immense value in that. You bring up HBOMax, but they just went through a protracted negotiation with the platforms because they wanted to get HBO off of Amazon/Roku channels. In fact, just this week, HBOMax is no longer on Amazon Channels. This is good business. It's risky, but it's best for the long term. BET is not taking that route. They prefer to grow their audience at the sacrifice of ARPU and data, probably because they want to be a media/content company--or at least that's what's easiest for them to do given their strengths. And that's okay. That is one way to play it--and it's also probably the route you go if you don't want to invest a "ton" in tech and part of your parent company's mandate is to be a content "arms dealer". Fifth, I think you've distilled our differentiated approach into something it very much isn't. I've written a few times about the few things we're trying to do. If you think our plan to get venture scale returns is to make "indie tv crap targeting black viewers", then you're not really here for the conversation but just to malign what we're doing. And I guess that's fine. I responded in hopes that others might be interested in an educated response to the misleading conclusions you reached.

gamblor956 5y ago

Maybe it's just because I have more exposure to the Hollywood side of this than you do, but you're very dismissive of BET and your other Hollywood competitors in a way that suggests you didn't do your research and that you're thinking that your tech backgrounds will magically let you jump into this market without actually knowing how it works. BET can never be all the way in on serving the black audience, as Viacom will always look to maximize a piece of content through the channel that makes it the most money Yes, BET is owned by Viacom, but unlike CBS, BET runs, and has run, largely as an independent unit, has its own financials, has control over its own studios and IP, and has its own streaming service, BET+. I really hope you haven't staked your entire business plan on a fundamental misunderstanding of how BET operates. There's also the product side, where none of the incumbents have invested in This is simply wrong. Every year, BET spends several multiples of what you've raised to date on developing new talent. Not only that but recent indie darlings I May Destroy You and Dear White People were both the product of conventional studios... But if by product you mean the delivery mechanism aka website, then your website simply isn't anything special, and it's definitely an inferior product compared to any your competitors right now. (It's irrelevant what you might have on your roadmap; customers will judge you based on what you have right now.) and the large players, have actually disintermediated themselves by selling through other products like Amazon and Roku channels. Now we haven't built out a differentiated product yet either, but it's on the roadmap and you can be assured that disintermediation is not a strategy we're interested in. ??? Are you actually dismissing your competitors being available on Amazon and Roku? The point of being on Amazon and Roku is to expand the potential audience, not to "disintermediate" themselves. If your goal is to be web-only, you're relegating yourself to never-was status. Note that HBO Max's interfaces online, on my LG TV, and on my Roku are virtually identical (the same is true of Disney+, and Netflix's respective interfaces). But no one said this would be easy, and we have a differentiated approach that we believe gives us a strong shot at success. As far as I can tell, your "differentiated approach" is to try and cheap your way into the market with a library of low-budget indie productions. This is a viable strategy to make money...if your plan is to resell those rights on to bigger studios/streamers, or use the rights to redevelop the IP. (See e.g., Saban of Power Rangers fame and his sizable library of old Japanese shows, or Blumhouse and horror). I had a number of other clients who also made good money reselling IP they bought on the cheap, but the key to this business strategy is knowing who wants to buy and how much they're willing to pay. But let's be serious: do you honestly believe that there is a $10 billion market for low-budget indie tv crap targeting black viewers? Because that's bigger than the non-targeted market for indie television in the U.S. (and note that Disney pulled in just over $11 billion in 2019 with mass market fare), so I'd have to seriously question both the inputs and the financial model that could have led to such a ridiculous number.

whoknowswhat11 5y ago
Not scientific but observationally their target market does seem relatively high use on social media - so probably an opportunity if they picked up traction - low budget could also be authentic and black ownership for example is differentiating. That said the attacks on the existing options read a bit weak - will be fun to see what they come up with!
Uzo0312 5y ago
Obviously, you seem to think very highly of what you know, and very little of what I know. First and foremost, the idea that I just have a tech background is probably where you've really misread me. I'm a media person through and through who developed with the times and tech industry's takeover by technical developments. Second, I 100% understand how BET is owned. I don't think anyone on Wall St. cares when a public company says we operate this subsidiary like an independent unit--it's pretty much never been true in the history of public companies, but it certainly isn't true in the case of BET. BET's biggest show of the year (the BET Awards) is aired on multiple Viacom channels. BET+'s subscriber numbers are folded into Viacom's overall numbers and separately disclosed. BET's cable carriage fees are negotiated in conjunction with Viacom's other cable channels. And at least (I haven't actually done a full count) 3 of BET's original shows are available separately on other Viacom SVOD services--something the "leader" of BET+ wouldn't do if they were 100% focused on growing their own subscriber base. Also, I'm pretty sure the head of BET (Scott Mills) reports to David Nevins and not the CEO of Viacom, which is the only way you could even begin to think it's an independent unit. So for you to say BET is run as an independent unit--well, I'd hate to see what it would look like if it wasn't run independently. Third, when it comes to product, yes, BET spends more than us. We're a start-up. Our product is not what theirs is...yet. All I'm saying is that they aren't implementing the types of features we plan to add, and aren't investing in product development at a commiserate level with that of a tech company. And that's okay--I don't think they want to be a tech company--they want to be a media company (which I'll touch on later). In terms of our website being "inferior", you are right. We're not there yet. But to say it doesn't matter what's on our roadmap--well, I take it you don't really invest in seed companies. Because if all you can do is see what we're doing today and write us off, then you wouldn't invest in any company at the seed stage. You wouldn't even invest in Netflix before SVOD with that criteria. But I'll give it to you: we're not as good as the incumbents today. Fourth, yes, I look at our competitors' decision to use Amazon Channels and Roku Channel as an opportunity for us. I think you don't quite understand the nuance there though. I'm not criticizing them for making their apps downloadable to Amazon or Roku--our apps are there as well. I'm saying that they disintermediate themselves by being apart of those platforms "Channels" offerings, which means Amazon and Roku actually own the customer relationship and can take a huge percentage of the revenue from each customer. By doing that, our competitors are simply replicating the old cable business model in digital form. But what Netflix should have taught us is that digital finally gives TV companies the chance to know and "own" their customers--and there's immense value in that. You bring up HBOMax, but they just went through a protracted negotiation with the platforms because they wanted to get HBO off of Amazon/Roku channels. In fact, just this week, HBOMax is no longer on Amazon Channels. This is good business. It's risky, but it's best for the long term. BET is not taking that route. They prefer to grow their audience at the sacrifice of ARPU and data, probably because they want to be a media/content company--or at least that's what's easiest for them to do given their strengths. And that's okay. That is one way to play it--and it's also probably the route you go if you don't want to invest a "ton" in tech and part of your parent company's mandate is to be a content "arms dealer". Fifth, I think you've distilled our differentiated approach into something it very much isn't. I've written a few times about the few things we're trying to do. If you think our plan to get venture scale returns is to make "indie tv crap targeting black viewers", then you're not really here for the conversation but just to malign what we're doing. And I guess that's fine. I responded in hopes that others might be interested in an educated response to the misleading conclusions you reached.